Structure of the Book

We have organized our book in the following manner. The first three chapters are devoted to the three forms of learning that have traditionally been studied in this field: the effects of noncontingent stimulus presentations (chapter 1), classical conditioning (chapter 2), and operant conditioning (chapter 3). In chapter 4 we discuss more complex forms of learning in which multiple regularities are involved. Each of these chapters begins with an overview of the most important functional knowledge we currently have on each type of learning— that is, the factors that are known to moderate the type of learning that is addressed in that chap-ter (e.g., the nature of stimuli and/or behaviors, the nature of the observed behavior)— and then we turn our attention to the mental process theories that currently dominate our think-ing on each type of learnthink-ing. Finally, chapter 5 provides an overview of how the psychology of learning has contributed to solving real- world problems such as psychological suffering.

the impact of stimulus pairings is mediated by the formation of associations in memory. Yet, as we noted earlier, it is very difficult to establish that mental representations are present (especially given the nonobservable nature of information; Wiener, 1961). This makes it very hard to estab-lish that classical conditioning has actually occurred, and thus difficult to study the phenomenon.

A second disadvantage is that theories about mental causes often change. For example, new theo-ries have emerged that question the very idea that learning is due to the association formation and activation (Mitchell, De Houwer, & Lovibond, 2009). Now if one were to define classical conditioning mentally (in terms of association formation) and to decide that associations do not actually exist, then one should conclude that classical conditioning does not exist either.

Critically, however, the fact that a theory about a phenomenon is wrong does not necessarily mean that the phenomenon itself does not exist. Quite the opposite: classical conditioning as an effect (i.e., the impact of stimulus pairings on behavior) exists irrespective of whether the mental explanation of that effect (in terms of association formation) is correct or not (Eelen, 1980/2018).

It is therefore essential that a strict distinction be made between what the mental process theory sets out to explain (e.g., classical conditioning effects) and elements of the mental process theory itself (e.g., the formation of associations in memory). In the case of learning, this means a distinc-tion must be made between the impact of environmental regularities on behavior (i.e., learning as an effect) and the mental processes that are assumed to mediate between these regularities and behavior (i.e., learning as a mental process). In combination with the distinction between proce-dures and effects that we discussed earlier (see section 0.2.3), we can therefore conclude that we define learning (both in general and the different types of learning) as an effect and not as a proce-dure or a mental process. It is this distinction between proceproce-dure, effect, and mental process that allows us to create an interaction between the functional and cognitive approaches to learning.

Box 0.4 (continued)

32 Introduction

The book you are now reading differs considerably from other textbooks on the psychology of learning, especially in the way it organizes knowledge on learning. For instance, in many cognitively inspired textbooks, no clear distinction is made between functional knowledge and mental process theories (e.g., Bouton, 2007, 2016; Domjan, 2000; Schwartz, Wasserman,

& Robbins, 2002), which often leads readers to confuse learning phenomena (e.g., classical conditioning) and mental process theories (e.g., association formation). Likewise, in textbooks written by functional psychologists, little or no attention is paid to the mental process theo-ries of learning (e.g., Catania, 2013; Michael, 2004; Pierce & Cheney, 2008). This is regrettable, given the heuristic and predictive value of those theories. The functional- cognitive framework that lies at the heart of this book celebrates and embraces both approaches to learning psy-chology. This book is unique because it combines insights from both approaches.

Another important difference between this and other books on learning research is that we explicitly limit ourselves to the psychology of learning. The titles of many other books contain the phrase “learning and behavior.” They discuss not only learning (changes in behavior that are caused by regularities in the environment) but also other causes of behavior (e.g., a single stimulus at one point in time, genetic factors). As we noted at the start of this chapter, we believe that behavior that is a function of a single stimulus (e.g., fear response to a loud bang) does not qualify as learning. A discussion of genetic factors does fit in a book on the psychology of learning insofar as it concerns the moderating impact of genetic factors

Think It Through 0.3: What Is the Relation between Functional and Mental Process Explanations?

Which of the following statements is correct?

• If you have a functional explanation, then by definition you also have a mental process explanation.

• If you have a mental process explanation, then by definition you also have a functional explanation.

Think It Through 0.4: What Is the Relation between Cognitive and Neural Explanations of Learning?

The cognitive approach offers an explanation for learning in terms of mental processes and con-tent. However, learning can also be explained on the basis of other processes such as neural pro-cesses in the brain. For example, it can be said that learning is the result of the formation of new connections in the brain.

What do you think? What are the differences and similarities between a statement of learning in terms of the brain and a statement of learning in terms of mental processes?

Introduction 33

on learning (see Think It Through 0.2). However, behavior that is determined only by genetic factors and not by regularities in the environment does not qualify as learned behavior, and thus falls outside the scope of a book on learning.

Before we delve into the first chapter, we should make several things clear. First, we cannot discuss every study or insight relevant to learning. That would be impossible, given that the discipline has existed for more than one hundred years and was for a long time the dominant topic of research in all of psychological science. A wealth of theories, procedures, and find-ings have accumulated over the decades, and we can cover only a thin slice of that knowl-edge in this book. For this reason, we focus on those insights that have had a major impact on our understanding of learning and, where possible, we consider potential applications of these findings for domains elsewhere in psychology and society. Nevertheless, we hope to provide a representative and cutting- edge picture of this research area.

Second, we pay little or no attention to the growing literature on the role of neu-ral processes and states within learning. This research fits within the so- called behavioneu-ral and cognitive neurosciences. Although neural processes and states certainly fit within the functional- cognitive framework outlined in this introductory chapter (see box 0.5), it would require considerable space to provide even a limited overview of this research area. For readers interested in acquiring information on behavioral and cognitive neuroscience, we recommend Breedlove and Watson (2016) and Gluck, Mercado, and Myers (2016). Third, connectionist models also will not be described. These models can be regarded as simulated neuronal systems and thus as belonging to neuroscience (see Clark, 1990; De Houwer, 2009).

Box 0.5 What Is the Role of the Brain in Learning Research?

Neural structures (parts of the brain) and processes (brain activity) can be involved in the study of learning in different ways. In contrast to mental processes and contents, neuronal structures and processes are observable and directly manipulable because they are part of the physical universe.

Therefore, these structures and processes can be included in a functional approach to learning research, either as an independent or dependent variable (see also Vahey & Whelan, 2016). For instance, one can treat neuronal structures and processes as independent variables that are manip-ulated (e.g., through brain surgery or administering chemical substances that influence the activ-ity of the brain) and examine how doing so impacts learning (i.e., the impact of environmental regularities on behavior). In this way, neuronal structures and processes can be seen as elements of the environment (in a broad sense, the organism is also part of the environment) that potentially moderate learning. One can also treat neuronal processes as a dependent variable (i.e., as a form of behavior) and examine the conditions under which environmental regularities lead to changes in

(continued)

34 Introduction

these neuronal processes. This would constitute a functional study of neuronal learning: how does the behavior of the brain change as a result of regularities in the environment? (see also box 0.1 about a comparable study of genetic learning). Both approaches can be found in a research domain called behavioral neuroscience (see Breedlove & Watson, 2016, for an overview).

In addition to a functional approach of the brain in learning research, one can also adopt a neural mechanistic approach. This involves looking for the neural mechanisms that mediate learning. This assumes that neural structures and processes are necessary links in a neural mecha-nism through which environmental regularities can influence behavior. This approach differs from a functional approach to learning psychology because attention is centered on the search for neural mechanisms instead of functional knowledge (i.e., environment- behavior relations). Certain functional psychologists are also interested in neural mechanisms, given that they help them achieve prediction and influence over behavior. After all, neural mechanisms consist of physical components (such as parts of the brain and chemicals) that are directly observable and manipu-lable (see also Skinner, 1953, p. 34, who acknowledged the importance of physical mechanisms).

But for a functional psychologist, knowledge about mechanisms is at best only a means and never an end in itself; the main goal will remain one’s capacity to influence behavior. Once again, we see that the scientific approach of a researcher is determined by his or her goals, not by what type of research he or she engages in.

Finally, one can also examine the brain from a cognitive approach to the psychology of learn-ing. Both functional knowledge about the role of neural structures and processes in learning as well as knowledge about the neural mechanisms that mediate learning can be used as input for cognitive theories of learning. This becomes possible as soon as we make assumptions about which mental processes are carried out by which neural structures and processes. If we then see, for example, that a certain neural structure is involved in a certain form of learning, and we know that this structure is responsible for storing certain information, then we can decide that storing that information is crucial in that form of learning. It is, however, important to realize that there are risks in making inferences about mental processes on the basis of activity at the neural level.

Even if we look at the brain, we can never directly observe mental representations or processes.

We can only ever make assumptions about what information is processed in the brain by exam-ining how the brain responds to stimuli in the environment (the brain as a dependent variable) and how interventions in the brain change behavior (the brain as an independent variable). And so long as there is uncertainty about the assumptions underlying the relation between brain and mental mechanism, there will be uncertainty about what we can learn about mental processes based on neural research (see also Poldrack & Yarkoni, 2016). Consequently, it seems easier to evaluate theories about neural rather than mental mechanisms.

Box 0.5 (continued)

Introduction 35

We hope that once you finish reading this book you come to see that the psychology of learning is concerned with (and thus can help you better understand) the very “source code” that underpins the behavior of human and nonhuman animals. Equipped with an understanding of the behavioral principles, theories, and findings discussed in this book, you will be better able to examine many behaviors in daily life and ask questions about the regularities that give rise to and sustain them. Those interested in clinical psychology can ask whether arachnophobes are afraid of spiders because they previously had a negative experience with spiders (e.g., a painful bite) or their phobia is based on complex learning (e.g., negative verbal information about spiders). Those interested in marketing research can better identify whether people buy a certain product because earlier purchases were followed by positive consequences (e.g., social reinforcement from others) or merely because the prod-uct was paired with other positive stimuli (e.g., a nice advertisement). Readers interested in public policy can better understand the factors that influence pressing problems created by human behavior, such as climate change, conflict, overeating, overpopulation, and resource depletion. Once you can read the source code that drives human behavior, you will be better positioned to predict and influence that behavior yourself. Learning research is an essential part of psychology. It is this vision that we aim to convey throughout this book.

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

• Summarize the available functional knowledge about different effects of noncontingent stimulus presentations.

• Describe the mental process theories of Sokolov, Bradley, and the opponent- process theo-ries of Solomon.

Introductory Task

Sometimes the repeated presentation of a stimulus can lead to changes in reactions to that stimulus. Can you think of three reactions or behaviors that can change as a result of repeated stimulus presentations? Also, think about possible explanations of those effects: how can repeated stimulus presentations result in such effects?